I feel bad because a great Stones fan saw U2 on live yesterday in Paris and he said to me ....

"Look ,AL ,you know how much I 've loved the Stones all these years and how I much I care for you but I have to tell that none of the three Stones concerts I'd seen since 1982 were as good,as awesome as the U2 show yesterday evening. "

He said the performance was increadible ,there were so many people ,a human tide -it was the first time the Stade de France received this ammount of persons (more than 92000 I think )

He didn't noticed what I call" the band megalomania ".












I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-05 17:21 by SwayStones.

He has seen only three Stones shows since 1982? He must be a great Stones fan then.

Quote
SwayStones
I feel now like if the Stones story is over.No more tour and I don't believe in miracles.

Nothing new.
The story is over since august 26th 2007...

About U2, I was in Paris yesterday night and in Milan last tuesday, the show was 100 times hotter in Italy !

Quote
franzk
He has seen only three Stones shows since 1982? He must be a great Stones fan then.

As Bo DIDDLEY used to sing "You can't judge a book by looking at its cover"
you can judge a Rolling STONES Fan by lookin' at the quantity of shows he could have seen!
That's really a stupid comment!
And there's many reasons for that, the main one is the MONEY!!!
Everybody couldn't pay to see several shows of the ROLLING STONES!

HMN



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-12 12:11 by Honestman.

Quote
franzk
He has seen only three Stones shows since 1982? He must be a great Stones fan then.

Oh ,I see,you're not a real Stones fan unless you saw the band more than a hundred times...
So how shall I call myself ?

Actually ,this guy had to handle a divorce and several other problems so YES he saw the band only three times and YES he is a great Stones fan.

Massimo
Nothing new I know but may be I didn't want to see the truth.
Hope you had a great time in Milan ,do you know how the set lists were chosen ?



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

Most of the songs U2 plays nowadays are ballads / easygoing music.
Then it is easy to create a happy and joyful atmosphere in a stadium with lots of people.
Most people prefer ballads and easygoing music, that's why groups like Robbie Williams, Britney Spears, Spice Girls etc. sell out their shows

Stones is rock and blues and hasn't turned in to a ballad band - thanx god for that - it would have been a disater.

Quote
SwayStones
Hope you had a great time in Milan ,do you know how the set lists were chosen ?

No I don't, but the setlists changes are very slight from a concert to another one (one more song in Milano #1 and only one song was replaced between Milano #1 / Paris #1).

i don't know why people always compare these bands to the stones,
u2 are almost 20 years younger.
they seem to be the biggest act this time, but 20 years ago the
stones started the biggest and most succesful tour the world have ever
seen,no other act came closer at this time.
because with the concept they made, with the biggest stage ever built,
the biggest choice of merchandise things, the biggest media hype,
they sold out every venue, they were the first who've done this,
they invented the stadium rock concerts.
and i don't know if any other big act, like u2, gusn'n'roses, tina
turner etc, would've had the courage to take the risk. they all
followed the concept the stones made.

Hate this kind of threads.

I was there and had a great time and it is true, biggest crowd in Stade de France's history.

Does this means that Vertigo is a better song than Gimme Shelter???, please....

I've been to a few more concerts than your friend and even though, as I said before, I had a great time, this is not even in my top 25 list of best concerts (and I'm beeing nice here)

The tape with the Q&A with the Space Station was so boring and stupid, then this thing about shping photos of people kissing was so badly recived by the crowd that Bono had to say "hey is not lame, is cool"... How lame is that. And Bono thanking corporations was the lowest point in any concert I've ever been (because he attacked economic interests just before)

I would not go on and on, I had a good time, as I'm sure many did last night in many other discos and bars in Paris, the concert was OK, but I can't let all the bling blind me for what an artits really is.

If you can catch this tour do it, is really good. Is in the same league as the Stones? Not by a long shot.

kait & leteyer
What you wrote is very wise and true.One can't compare what's not comparable.

It's the 1st time on this board I start this kind of thread.Let say that my friend comments put me down because I miss so much the Stones .You get it ?

This friend went to see quite a lot of rockn'roll shows -the biggests bands like the Floyd and all these bands from the 70's -
And I felt bad he didn't noticed the megalomania of the U2 concert -have heard too about this stupid talk with the Space Station ,I am sure nobody understood -



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-12 13:54 by SwayStones.

Quote
leteyer
Hate this kind of threads.

I was there and had a great time and it is true, biggest crowd in Stade de France's history.

Does this means that Vertigo is a better song than Gimme Shelter???, please....

I've been to a few more concerts than your friend and even though, as I said before, I had a great time, this is not even in my top 25 list of best concerts (and I'm beeing nice here)

The tape with the Q&A with the Space Station was so boring and stupid, then this thing about shping photos of people kissing was so badly recived by the crowd that Bono had to say "hey is not lame, is cool"... How lame is that. And Bono thanking corporations was the lowest point in any concert I've ever been (because he attacked economic interests just before)

I would not go on and on, I had a good time, as I'm sure many did last night in many other discos and bars in Paris, the concert was OK, but I can't let all the bling blind me for what an artits really is.

If you can catch this tour do it, is really good. Is in the same league as the Stones? Not by a long shot.

<<< Does this means that Vertigo is a better song than Gimme Shelter ??? please .... >>>

Quite agree

<<< If you can catch this tour do it, is really good. Is in the same league as the Stones? Not by a long shot. >>>

Again, quite agree.

Personally, I find U2 only marginally more exciting than Bruce Springsteen, which ain't sayin' a lot, cos' I don't find him exciting in the slightest. But there's no doubting the popularity, so it's a case of "each to theirs" I guess ?

Cant stand U2 post 1989,they followed trends in the 90's instead of being themselves.

Quote
Hansel
Cant stand U2 post 1989,they followed trends in the 90's instead of being themselves.

Yeah ,"Live at Red Rocks" was great.



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

U2 are a grey band playing grey music for grey people (accountants mostly).

U2 is not even a rock band, can't compare them to the Stones.

Swaystones, keep the faith. Pull yourself together. U2 and the Stones have little in common

Skipstone, speaking for myself, I find your language offensive in this forum.

It's beyond me how anyone can like both the Stones and U2.
That U2 are poular is undeniable but popularity isn't necessarily commensurate with talent.
Shakespeare is regarded as the world's greatest playwright but soap operas command a larger audience.
As stonesrule says,"U2 and the Stones have little in common".
Evenin' all.

I like both bands in concert and will enjoy either one of them, although i like the stones alot more, iam a diehard stones fan and a big u2 fan

Each to his (or her) own.

It's beyond me how anyone can like both the Stones and U2.
That U2 are poular is undeniable but popularity isn't necessarily commensurate with talent.

..wtf? This doesnt even make any sense. It is entirely possible to like both bands and suggesting otherwise is just goofy. U2 is an immensely talented band, like 'em or not. You gotta give credit where credit is due. Personally, U2 kinda lost me in that movie of theirs where Bono goes, 'this is a song Charles Manson stole from the Beatles, and now we're stealing it back..' ... as if to place himself and his band in that echelon.

Uh, no.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-12 18:08 by Taylor Era.

Quote
melillo
I like both bands in concert and will enjoy either one of them, although i like the stones alot more, iam a diehard stones fan and a big u2 fan

What melillo said. U2 puts on a great show, although I'd rather be at a Stones show anyday.

"No Anchovies, Please"

Quote
Taylor Era
It's beyond me how anyone can like both the Stones and U2.
That U2 are poular is undeniable but popularity isn't necessarily commensurate with talent.

..wtf? This doesnt even make any sense. It is entirely possible to like both bands and suggesting otherwise is just goofy. U2 is an immensely talented band, like 'em or not. You gotta give credit where credit is due. Personally, U2 kinda lost me in that movie of theirs where Bono goes, 'this is a song Charles Manson stole from the Beatles, and now we're stealing it back..' ... as if to place himself and his band in that echelon.

Uh, no.

Allow me to explain, Taylor Era.
What I wrote in the first sentence is merely my opinion.
My second statement was a general point.
Of course, the thread is anout U2 and the Stones and, again, I can only speak for myself when I say that U2's talent is minor. I don't care how well they play their songs in concert because I think their songs are poor to not-very-good in the first place.
My statement therefore does make sense. Your opinion is different to mine and you are entitled to it.
Hope this is of help.

To be honest, I don't know how many times I must have disappointed U2 fans by remaining cold and unimpressed at U2 concerts. To each its own.

C

Quote
Harlem Shuffler

Quote
Taylor Era
It's beyond me how anyone can like both the Stones and U2.
That U2 are poular is undeniable but popularity isn't necessarily commensurate with talent.

..wtf? This doesnt even make any sense. It is entirely possible to like both bands and suggesting otherwise is just goofy. U2 is an immensely talented band, like 'em or not. You gotta give credit where credit is due. Personally, U2 kinda lost me in that movie of theirs where Bono goes, 'this is a song Charles Manson stole from the Beatles, and now we're stealing it back..' ... as if to place himself and his band in that echelon.

Uh, no.

Allow me to explain, Taylor Era.
What I wrote in the first sentence is merely my opinion.
My second statement was a general point.
Of course, the thread is anout U2 and the Stones and, again, I can only speak for myself when I say that U2's talent is minor. I don't care how well they play their songs in concert because I think their songs are poor to not-very-good in the first place.
My statement therefore does make sense. Your opinion is different to mine and you are entitled to it.
Hope this is of help.

You make sense to me Harlem Shuffler

I saw some footage of U2's latest tour on TV and I decided to close my eyes to concentrate on the music (U2 are a rock band after all...) and not let my judgement be affected by The Claw.


What I've heard was some "rock" muzak poorly performed. If what I was hearing was the greatest rock band then I guess rock is dead. ><
In other words it's easy to be dazzled by a 60-meters high light tower. Babies are dazzled by TV sets : remember "Tele Tubbies"? U2 have invented "Tele Tubbies" for grown-ups : it's The Claw

As Keith once remarked : "the eyes are the whores of the senses"...

''What I wrote in the first sentence is merely my opinion.
My second statement was a general point.
Of course, the thread is anout U2 and the Stones and, again, I can only speak for myself when I say that U2's talent is minor. I don't care how well they play their songs in concert because I think their songs are poor to not-very-good in the first place.
My statement therefore does make sense. Your opinion is different to mine and you are entitled to it.
Hope this is of help.''

..that's cool...hey I got raked over the coals for suggesting Black Crowes were overrated, but that is just my opinion, too.

U2 is far from my favorite band either, but to suggest they are 'untalented' or that their songs are poor is pushing it a bit, don't you think? I think Edge is one of the most innovative guitarists of his era; he practically created a whole guitar sound with his use of delays and whatnot.. I mean his whole setup is pretty technical, and I think you'd need to be pretty talented just to set his rig up

there are, out there, REAL untalented bands, like, well, Nickleback



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-12 18:58 by Taylor Era.

As a U2 fan, and someone who saw the 2nd show in Barcelona. I can say this...
They are now performing like men who are OLDER than the Stones, with the exception of Adam Clayton. The so called setlist shake-ups they promised have been a joke so far. Yeah, Three songs? Whatever. By this number of shows into ABB the Stones had played 8 different songs in and out of the set, U2 have done three. The whole thing with the stage is exactly, as someone stated previously, just something to distract people. Thats it. They're only playing TWO songs from the 90s, the albums that they used to say "Are our defining albums!" But I guess its too hard to rehearse anything thats complicated. Another thing, A lot of the U2 people on the forums are bitching about how a Stones comparison "is wrong." I told a couple of people "well at least the Stones don't hide the extra musicians under the stage and take all the glory for themselves."
When you have to play Sunday Bloody Sunday or Pride in the Name of Love, to a click track, something is wrong.

Bring on the next Stones tour! U2 have gone boring again.

Quote
melillo
I like both bands in concert and will enjoy either one of them, although i like the stones alot more, iam a diehard stones fan and a big u2 fan

That's the way I feel about this issue as well. Simple as that.

Quote
Taylor Era
''What I wrote in the first sentence is merely my opinion.
My second statement was a general point.
Of course, the thread is anout U2 and the Stones and, again, I can only speak for myself when I say that U2's talent is minor. I don't care how well they play their songs in concert because I think their songs are poor to not-very-good in the first place.
My statement therefore does make sense. Your opinion is different to mine and you are entitled to it.
Hope this is of help.''

..that's cool...hey I got raked over the coals for suggesting Black Crowes were overrated, but that is just my opinion, too.

U2 is far from my favorite band either, but to suggest they are 'untalented' or that their songs are poor is pushing it a bit, don't you think? I think Edge is one of the most innovative guitarists of his era; he practically created a whole guitar sound with his use of delays and whatnot.. I mean his whole setup is pretty technical, and I think you'd need to be pretty talented just to set his rig up

there are, out there, REAL untalented bands, like, well, Nickleback

Hi Taylor Era.

I don't mean to be argumentative, it's just that U2 leave me cold.
You have a point about technical ability so, yes, there is talent involved in that area.
I also agree with your comment about the Black Crowes.

P.S.Thanks for your post MKjan.

Unless someone saw the Stones and U2 ON THE SAME DAY, it's impossible to say which band was "better". As I once heard a very famous drummer say to a fan who called him the greatest ever, "You're only saying that because I'm here".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-12 20:58 by tatters.